FA must stop stars from fooling the bloke with a whistle and getting away with assault

Imagine the scene. You have just been given a major task involving one of your company's biggest clients. Although there was some controversy along the way, you succeed and your bosses are happy with the result, indicating you will be entrusted with such responsibilities again.

But, deep down, you know you made a mistake that may well have affected the outcome. Do you go cap in hand to your employers, admitting the error and immediately placing doubt in their minds as to your aptitude for the biggest challenges?

Probably not. And yet, this is what FIFA effectively ask referees to do by refusing football authorities the use of retrospective video action unless the match officials concede they may have made a mistake. The first step to rehabilitation is to admit that you have a problem. It is often the hardest.

Aspiring referees in a competitive job attract enough criticism from all sides let alone drawing attention to any fallibility themselves.

FIFA's Laws of the Game dictate that football associations can act if there are "obvious errors" but FIFA firmly frown upon any questioning of a referee's integrity. Protecting the sanctity of officials is important but it is hard to see how Mark Clattenburg's reputation has not suffered after his decision to punish Wayne Rooney's forearm smash on Wigan midfielder James McCarthy with nothing more than a free-kick and a hug.

Clattenburg's refusal to re-examine the incident - perhaps an example of his own arrogance, but we'll come to that later - should not be the end of the matter because even the most myopic Manchester United supporter can see that Rooney's indiscretion merited greater punishment. Surely sanity must prevail and greater power be given to the Football Association to avoid such obvious injustices as this. How many times do we see an obvious red card offence receive only a yellow card with a referee insisting in his report that he dealt correctly with the incident?

The FA will, of course, act in "exceptional circumstances", as they did when handing out an eight-match ban with a further 15 suspended to Ben Thatcher for his thuggery that left Pedro Mendes needing oxygen in a match between Manchester City and Portsmouth in 2006. But what exactly are "exceptional circumstances"? If judged on the severity of a player's injury, then Rooney got away with it because his elbow attempt was rubbish and McCarthy is made of stern stuff.

What arbitrary grounds are these for avoiding punishment? Of course, the rules should not be relaxed to the extent that every tackle is analysed to the point of farce but in an age when technology is so prevalent and the footballing stakes are so high, it seems incompatible that you can get away with assault if you fool one bloke with a whistle.

It works elsewhere. The Italian FA punished Juventus winger Milos Krasic for diving against Bologna earlier this season - the referee saw the incident and gave a penalty - while in France, Rennes midfielder Tongo Doumbia was suspended for four games after a dangerous tackle which the match officials only deemed worthy of a yellow card at the time.

So what is the English FA's excuse and why do FIFA not bring in stronger regulations throughout the game? FIFA's reluctance to use video technology stems from a desire to ensure changes are not made that cannot be embraced at all levels of the game, as if football's popularity would be harmed by an improvement in its regulation at the highest level. Such controversy sparks debate, they claim. Well, so do moments of brilliance - Rooney has provided us with both in the last few weeks and I know which one I'd rather be talking about.

The contention that United benefit more than most from refereeing decisions is not the issue - although evidence suggests it is not without foundation - the system is fundamentally flawed and the FA must downgrade their "exceptional circumstances" clause while applying pressure to FIFA in a bid to make them see sense.

Refereeing is often depicted as the impossible job and much sympathy should be afforded for the difficulty of their task but the protection they receive from "re-refereeing" if they have already seen an incident has the capacity to create delusional officials.

Clattenburg's record is unenviable yet his humility appears non-existent. Forgetting his eight-month suspension relating to disclosure of personal business interests, his refereeing of the 2007 Merseyside derby (in which he appeared to change his mind on sending off Tony Hibbert after Steven Gerrard voiced his opinion) ensured he has never since refereed a match involving Everton. He sent off Craig Bellamy in 2009 for diving after allegedly asking the Manchester City coaching staff at half-time: "How do you work with him all week?" And last October he allowed a controversial goal to stand for United against Tottenham, as all players were waved away but Rio Ferdinand was allowed to argue the case.

The referee was also at the centre of another howler involving United and Spurs in 2005 when Pedro Mendes' long-range shot was clearly fumbled over the line by Roy Carroll but neither Clattenburg or his assistants were in a position to award the goal.

For the record, Clattenburg is a Newcastle fan but he has a questionable approach when dealing with the game's big players. However, all referees have really difficult tasks managing players.

Officials need help as the game craves consistency over its discipline. Maybe you would own up to your bosses, thinking honesty will count in your favour. But then if they were proper regulators, they wouldn't need to rely on such humility. And neither should football.

Laws with flaws

Article 72 of FIFA's Laws of the Game: "During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee; these decisions are final; in certain circumstances, the jurisdiction of the judicial bodies may apply (cf. art. 77)."

If only Arsenal's wise guys had the answer to final question

The dearth of English players at Arsenal has long been a cause for derision but now it appears we have found an answer: maybe most are too stupid for the club.

A fascinating interview last week with the Gunners' psychological profiler Jacques Crevoisier revealed the 117 statements that constitute the mental aptitude test to determine their personality profile and suitability for Arsene Wenger.

There are three key attributes. "To be an Arsenal player you need to be technically gifted," said Crevoisier. Theoretically no problem there - continental players are often cited as being superior technically but one glance at the England squad proves this country can produce such talent - Arsenal have Theo Walcott, Jack Wilshere and Kieran Gibbs in Fabio Capello's plans.

"And they need to be clever." Oh. Wayne Rooney and Ashley Cole's antics in the last few days have proved intelligence is a commodity many English players struggle with. Being out-thought on the pitch is a regular failing of the England team, as is the apparent inability to express themselves on the big stage - the so-called "weight of the England shirt".

"English players are usually more competitive in terms of aggressiveness but often they were not so good on self‑confidence," said Crevoisier, who was an adviser to Aime Jacquet when France won the 1998 World Cup.

Of course, Crevoisier's method does not guarantee success. For example, one of those 117 statements is not: "I shall deal authoritatively with a routine clearance in the 89th minute of a cup final."